The headlines were a fettuccine fanatic’s dream. “Eating Pasta Linked to Weight Loss in New Study,” Newsweek reported this month, racking up more than 22,500 Facebook likes, shares, and comments. The happy news also went viral on the Independent, the New York Daily News, and Business Insider.
What
those and many other stories failed to note, however, was that three of
the scientists behind the study in question had financial conflicts as
tangled as a bowl of spaghetti, including ties to the world’s largest
pasta company, the Barilla Group.
Over the last decade or so, with
the rise of the Atkins, South Beach, paleo, and ketogenic diets, Big
Pasta has battled a societal shift against carbohydrates — and funded
and promoted research suggesting that noodles are good for you.
At least 10 peer-reviewed studies about pasta published since 2008 were either fundeddirectly by Barilla
or, like the one published this month, were carried out by scientists
who have had financial ties to the company, which reported sales of 3.4
billion euros ($4.2 billion) in 2016. For two years, Barilla has
publicized some of these studies, plus others favorable to its product,
on its website with taglines like “Eat Smart Be Smart...With Pasta” and “More Evidence Pasta Is Good For You.” And the company hired the large public relations firm Edelman to push the latest study’s findings to journalists.
None
of these studies reported anything negative about eating pasta. And
that’s not necessarily incorrect. Pasta, in moderation, is a staple of
the healthy Mediterranean diet.
But health experts say that consumers should be skeptical of the
findings of any single study, and should know that the pasta industry is
only funding science because it sees an upside.
“The purpose of
these studies is not to do basic science about the benefits of the
Mediterranean diet — those are very well-established,” said Marion
Nestle, a New York University emerita professor of nutrition, food
studies, and public health who tracks how the food industry funds
science. “The purpose of this is to sell more pasta.”

“The purpose of this is to sell more pasta.”

Barilla also sponsors scientific conferences. Those include the Italian Society of Human Nutrition’s April 2017 conference
in Parma, Italy — where Barilla is based — with the special theme of
“Pasta: new needs, new ingredients, new technologies,” and last June’s International Symposium on Diabetes and Nutrition in Denmark. The new study’s results were presented at both meetings.There’s
also the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition Foundation, which
describes itself as an independent think tank and runs its own annual conference about nutrition and sustainability research. And Barilla funds an anti–childhood obesity program in Parma, which includes Barilla-sponsored cooking classes and has enrolled more than 40,000 kids since 2002. Studies about the program claim it has helped improve children’s nutrition knowledge and joint mobility.“In
conducting scientific research, we abide by guiding principles that
were created to maintain transparency and minimize potential bias,” Anna
Rosales, director of nutrition, technical regulatory, and scientific
affairs at Barilla America, told BuzzFeed News by email. For example,
she said, citing those principles, scientists have “the freedom to publish their findings, regardless of outcome.”In its 2016 annual report,
the company reported spending 40 million euros ($49.5 million) on
research and development, including “intense nutritional research on
pasta aimed at divulging accurate information on the nutritional quality
of complex carbohydrates, with numerous studies under way in Europe and
the United States, with the purpose of assessing the impact of eating
pasta on body weight and glycemic response and more generally, the role
this product plays in our diet.” (Rosales clarified that Barilla funds
research both internally, “to inform innovation,” and externally in
“exploring the benefits of a Mediterranean-style of living.” She
declined to say how much money went to outside researchers.)In
funding academic scientists, Barilla is following the playbook of other
food and beverage giants, said Nestle of New York University: “They are
doing what every other food company is doing, which is to try to get
research that will demonstrate that the products are healthy.”
Coca-Cola, for example, funded a group that was criticized for promoting the idea of exercising more and worrying less about calories. The alcohol industry is funding an ongoing government trial about the potential health benefits of moderate drinking, and Big Sugar has funded research on the dangers of fat.Several
years ago, Nestle visited Barilla’s Parma headquarters. “They were
really, really concerned that the low-carb movement was going to kill
them,” she recalled, “and that if they didn’t do something to make their
products appear more nutritional and healthier, they were going to be
in trouble.”Asked whether Barilla’s research was fueled by
anti-carb sentiments, Rosales said, “Barilla does not base its funding
on fad diets or trends. The intent of participating in research is
grounded in better understanding how our products fit into a healthy
lifestyle.”

The latest pasta study to go viral — as disclosed in its
1,100-word statement of “competing interests” — was carried out by three
scientists with financial relationships to the food industry: Cyril
Kendall, John Sievenpiper, and David Jenkins, all from St. Michael’s
Hospital in Toronto. These scientists have received financial support,
such as funding or food donations, from dozens of companies and industry
groups, including Barilla, the statement noted.Although
Barilla did not fund the study (which was a review of existing
research, not a new experiment), all three scientists have been
co-authors of paststudiespartiallyfundedby the company, all about the health effects of diets that included pasta.Jenkins
told BuzzFeed News that Barilla contributed about $456,000 to his
research between 2004 and 2015, as well as travel funding. Barilla is
also donating about 15,000 boxes of pasta to an ongoing clinical trial of theirs, Sievenpiper said, testing whether certain foods, combined with exercise, can improve heart health.

“You have to engage the food industry to get those trials done.”

The researchers say that big trials are expensive and that they wouldn’t be able to carry them out with government grants alone.“It’s
very hard to fund randomized trials properly,” Sievenpiper told
BuzzFeed News, explaining why he’s accepted research grants, food
donations, and other forms of funding from the likes of the National
Dried Fruit Trade Association, the California Walnut Commission,
Unilever, and Quaker, in addition to government funding. “You have to
engage the food industry to get those trials done.”He and his
colleagues, he added, “see it as our role to try to influence
[companies] and produce healthier foods and promote healthier foods.”Studies
backed by food companies are much more likely to favor their sponsors’
financial interests than independently funded studies, researchshows.
Still, getting money from industry is common, and these conflicts of
interest don’t necessarily mean that a given dataset shouldn’t be
trusted.“Even though you can see evidence of overall bias in the
literature, it doesn’t mean that any one study is biased, either
intentionally or subconsciously, or that any researcher is specifically
biased,” said David Ludwig, a nutrition professor at Harvard School of
Public Health, who has studied research funded by beverage companies.And
in the hierarchy of carbohydrates, Ludwig says, lightly cooked pasta
does have some nutritional advantages over others as measured by “glycemic index”
— or how quickly our digestive system breaks down a food into sugars
that are then absorbed into the bloodstream. The glycemic index for
spaghetti is 49, which is lower than white bread (75) and white rice
(73) but higher than, say, an apple (36).In the new study,
Sievenpiper said his team was curious whether pasta was really hurting
people’s ability to lose weight, citing anti-carb chatter on social
media and from nutrition experts. “Is this really, of all the things we
need to worry about, a concern?” he said.His team looked at 32
randomized control trials about low-glycemic diets that included pasta.
Across all of these trials, the study found, the low-glycemic diets did
not appear to contribute to weight gain. And people on these diets were
more likely to lose weight than those on higher-glycemic diets.Independent
scientists, however, are skeptical of these conclusions. For example,
just 11 of the 32 trials included data about how much pasta people
actually ate, a median of 3.3 servings per week. (A serving is about
half a cup.) And the weight loss that did emerge was tiny — about 1.4
pounds.“I think everyone would agree that three servings of pasta
a week is not going to lead to weight gain,” said Kevin Klatt, a
graduate student in nutritional sciences at Cornell University who was
not involved in the work.

“Given that some of the authors do have a tie to the pasta
industry, it just raises a question mark for me: Why the unwarranted
focus on pasta?”

Those weaknesses are clearly stated in the paper, Sievenpiper said, adding that he was careful to hedge in the press release
that he had “some confidence” in concluding that “perhaps pasta can be
part of a healthy diet.” He also argued that the media oversimplified
the findings.“This is pasta in the context of a low-glycemic
diet,” he said. “Yes, it can fit in a healthy diet and it doesn’t mean
you can go hog wild and consume as much as you want on any diet.”But
Kristin Sainani, an associate professor of health research and policy
at Stanford University, doesn’t necessarily blame journalists for
getting the story wrong. She found it “a little bit misleading” that the
scientists would single out pasta in their analysis, and stick “pasta”
in the title, when the dish wasn’t a core part of any of the underlying
trials.“Given that some of the authors do have a tie to the pasta
industry, it just raises a question mark for

me: Why the unwarranted focus on pasta?” she said.

Graham Roumieu for BuzzFeed News

Barilla’s funded research includes a 2017 study
that looked at whether pasta was connected to risk of diseases such as
type 2 diabetes. There turned out to be scant evidence for that link,
but the scientists did confirm that pasta leads to a lower post-meal
blood-sugar spike than bread or potatoes. On Barilla’s website, it got
translated into this alluring takeaway: “Pasta meals may result in more stable blood sugar than meals with bread or potatoes.”Then there was the 2016 study
that reported that eating pasta was linked to having a lower body mass
index and smaller waist. “Eating Pasta Does Not Cause Obesity, Italian
Study Finds,” reported a Time story with more than 72,000 Facebook likes, comments, and shares. “Pasta Doesn’t Make You Gain Weight, Says Best Study Ever,” Women’s Health declared.Barilla, too, was thrilled. “Enjoy your favorite carb, guilt-free!” the company announced
online, without mentioning it had partly funded the survey of Italians
that was the basis for the research. “The study also showed that a pasta
focused diet may lead to a trimmer waistline and a slimmer belly.
Sounds good to us!”

One study author's self-described goal is to help food companies
“develop and communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their
products and services.”

But that research had serious flaws. Regina Nuzzo, a statistics
professor at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, pointed out that
its first statistical analysis did find a link between being obese and
eating more pasta. But once the scientists crunched the data a different
way, the association disappeared. “And very conveniently, it went in
the other direction,” Nuzzo said. (The study’s senior author, Licia
Iacoviello of the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Health
Care Neuromed in Pozzilli, Italy, did not respond to requests for
comment.)A similar Barilla study
last year reported on how pasta fit into Americans’ diets, based on a
survey of nearly 11,000 adults’ dietary habits. One of the study’s
authors, Victor Fulgoni, is an executive at the consulting firm Nutrition Impact LLC,
whose self-described goal is to help food companies “develop and
communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their products and
services.” Fulgoni declined to comment for this story.The
National Pasta Association has commissioned at least two studies that
were presented at conferences over the last year and a half but have not
yet been published in journals. Together, they reported that
pasta-eating children and adults have better diets than non-pasta-eaters.Bastiaan
de Zeeuw, chairman of the National Pasta Association, said in a
statement that it funds research to help fill a “gap in nutritional
research around pasta’s specific role in the diet.” He said the group is
not involved in how the studies are done.In Parma, thousands of children have learned about healthy eating and working out through Giocampus, the educational program funded by Barilla, the city, the University of Parma, and other local institutions. A recent study
partially funded by Barilla examined the diets and health habits of
nearly 700 participating fifth-graders, many of whom reported eating
pasta almost every day. The study found that kids’ sleep habits are
linked to being overweight and that those who stayed on the
Mediterranean diet were more likely to do well in school.Barilla touted
the Giocampus study as a family-friendly nutrition lesson: “Pasta by
itself won’t make your children smarter, but the complex carbs in it
will help them stay full longer and keep them focused on their studies,
not to mention fueling their physical activity which will further help
them improve their cognitive abilities.”One of the study’s
authors, Maria Vittoria Calestani, became a publicist for Barilla in
June 2017, the same month the study was published, according to her LinkedIn. And the pasta maker sponsored a sleep “awareness” day
run a few months prior by another author, Liborio Parrino, a sleep
disorder specialist at the University of Parma. Neither returned a
request for comment.Yet another author from the same university, nutrition researcher Francesca Scazzina, is on a scientific committee that studies Giocampus, and has done research with funding or donated food
from Barilla. She said that her team has done studies over the last
four years with about 15,000 euros ($18,500) from the project’s
sponsors, including Barilla.“Everything we did in the framework
of this project, using money paid by this virtuous alliance of sponsors,
has had amazing positive repercussions on the local community, making
Parma one of the best place in the world to live, at least if you are a
school child!” she said by email.

Barilla isn’t the only pasta manufacturer putting money into science. Granoro, based in southeastern Italy, drew headlines like “Pasta Could Help Save Your Life, Says New Study” last fall for research into a new, barley-enriched pasta that was shown to improve mice’s heart health.Another
brand, Kamut, pays for research into khorasan, an organically grown
ancient Mesopotamian wheat mostly sold in Italy — and Bob Quinn, the
Montana-based organic farmer who leads the brand, said that work isn’t a
response to the low-carb craze at all.More than a decade ago,
Quinn told BuzzFeed News, customers were telling him they felt better
eating khorasan than they did modern, mass-produced wheat, so he asked
US researchers to study khorasan’s health effects. They all turned him
down, he recalled.So he took his offer to Italy, where
researchers were much more receptive. His company has funneled almost $2
million into more than 20 published studies about health, Quinn said,
some of which suggest khorasan — in pasta, bread, crackers, and other
foods — could help fend against heartdisease and type 2 diabetes.Quinn
said he helps the scientists generate research ideas, but that the
experts are free to publish whatever they find. They haven’t always seen
big differences between the modern and ancient wheat, but they also
haven’t seen any significant health problems from the latter, he said.“What we’re doing is doing research that would otherwise not be done,” he said. ●

Copyright Disclaimer

Music /Video selections:

RonDoids does not own the copyright to certain media posted within.

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

We Use Cookies

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services, to personalize ads and to analyze traffic. Information about your use of this site is shared with Google. By using this site, you agree to its use of cookies.Learn MoreGot it